Questions to ask before planning a build

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read; the description adds that the return value is 'one short message' of questions and that the answers must be forwarded as `goals`, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not describe what happens if the player refuses or partial answers, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, then the enumeration of question topics, then the routing instruction. The list is long but every item is a distinct intake dimension, so nothing is filler; it is slightly run-on but efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must explain what comes back — and it does ('one short message' of questions) plus how to use the result. It is complete for a prompt-template tool, though the exact structure of the returned message is not spelled out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the baseline is 4. The only parameter mentioned (`goals`) belongs to the downstream tools, not this one, so no additional input semantics are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a specific deliverable — the set of questions to ask the player before planning — with a scope qualifier ('before planning anything') that no sibling shares. An agent can distinguish this intake/templating tool from evaluate_build, plan_passive_tree and the other planning tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It places the tool in the workflow precisely ('before planning anything'), tells the agent to skip already-answered questions, and routes the collected answers downstream to evaluate_build, compare_builds and optimize_build via the `goals` parameter. It lacks an explicit when-not-use clause, keeping it just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.